With Sistani and the others meeting with As-Sadr, will making him a martyr really lead to the disbanding of his army? From AP:
NAJAF, Iraq - A 2,500-strong U.S. force, backed by tanks and artillery, pushed to the outskirts of the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Tuesday for a showdown with a radical cleric.The standoff in the south came as a U.S. military helicopter went down near Fallujah in the west. Three soldiers were wounded and a Marine helping secure the site was killed by mortars, the military said.
Meanwhile, the string of kidnappings that has coincided with violence around Fallujah and in the south this month continued. A French journalist was reported abducted, and four Italians working as private guards were missing and feared kidnapped.
An Associated Press tally shows that 22 were being held hostage, while 35 others had been taken hostage and released.
However, Dan Senor, the spokesman for the U.S.-led administration, said Tuesday that about 40 foreign hostages from 12 countries were being held by Iraqi insurgents, and that the FBI is investigating the abductions. Among those held are three Japanese and truck driver Thomas Hamill of Macon, Miss., whose captors had threatened to kill them.
Senor said the administration would not negotiate with "terrorists or kidnappers" to gain the hostages' release. He would not comment on efforts to free the captives.
Gen. John Abizaid, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said he has asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to adjust the U.S. troop rotation into and out of Iraq this spring so that U.S. commanders can have the use of perhaps 10,000 more soldiers than they otherwise would have.
On the way to Najaf, the U.S. force's 80-vehicle convoy was ambushed Monday night by gunmen firing small arms and setting off roadside bombs north of the city. One soldier was killed and an American civilian contractor was wounded, officers in the convoy said.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said their mission was to "capture or kill" radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
American units set up a cordon on approaches to the city, barring militiamen from leaving.
Some 2,500 U.S. troops were massed outside of the city and commanders met Tuesday to review battle plans.
"We have consolidated north of Najaf and are preparing for combat operations," said Maj. Gen. John R. S. Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division.
Clashes took place Tuesday when a U.S. unit on the edges of the city pursued armed supporters of al-Sadr into Najaf and killed several militiamen, Batiste said. "Treat the people of Najaf with dignity and respect," Batiste said. "Only bite off the head of the poised rattlesnake."
Iraqi leaders launched hurried negotiations aimed at averting a U.S. assault on the city, site of the holiest Shiite site, the Imam Ali Shrine. Al-Sadr was photographed by Associated Press Television News leaving the shrine Tuesday.
The sons of Iraq's three grand ayatollahs — including the most powerful one, Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani — met al-Sadr Monday night in his Najaf office and assured him of their opposition to any U.S. strike.
"They agreed not to allow any hostile act against Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr and the city of Najaf," said a person at the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The delegation also was reportedly trying to work out a compromise to prevent a U.S. attack.
Col. Dana J.H. Pittard, the commander of the force, said his troops were aware that a "single shot in Najaf" by U.S. soldiers could outrage Iraq's powerful Shiite majority.
"Look at this as the Shiite Vatican," Pittard said before the deployment.
The grand ayatollahs — older, moderate leaders with immense influence among Shiites — have long kept the young, fiercely anti-American al-Sadr at arm's length. The dispatch of the delegation reflected the eagerness to avoid bloodshed in Najaf and the new influence that the uprising by the al-Mahdi Army's militia has brought al-Sadr.
In a concession to American demands, al-Sadr ordered his militiamen out of police stations and government buildings in Najaf and the nearby cities of Karbala and Kufa. Police were back in their stations and on patrols, while al-Sadr's black-garbed gunmen largely stayed out of sight.
But the militia rebuffed a U.S. demand to disband.
Meanwhile: 4 Mutilated Bodies Found in Iraq.
What kind of message does it send that Iraqi police were "allowed" back in when Sadr withdrew his troops? The message I get loud and clear is that Sadr can come back in any time.
Incidentally, on CNBC, Bob Kerrey just said we should have called Al Qaida an *Islamic* army that threatens the US. Progress.
I think "Najaf" translates as "smoking hole in ground"......
Najaf would make as good a site for an example - by dropping a mini-nuke - to the Islamo-fascists as any of their centres.
But, at first, it could be an idea to let, say, 90 minutes elapse before it's obliterated. This will let out any civilians - with their hands up - who aren't committed to "martyrdom". These people ought to be transported to a safe distance, prior to the detonation.
The unmistakable message conveyed by blasting the place would be that we're definitely not going to be sucked into the Islamo-fascists' games: room-to-room, hand-to-hand fighting.
Pointedly, it should also show Iran - quietly supporting the Sadr insurrection - that if it wants to arm itself with A-bombs, this is what the unavoidable result will be, on its own territory, in spades.
Hopefully, a measure of deterrence will have been established (for a while anyway), but, if not - if the Islamo-fascists remain too fanatical - since they don't possess the means to retaliate at this stage, their fate is sealed.
I saw a news story earlier today where a top aid to Sadyr was arrested but released because he was a so-called moderating influence on Sadyr.
The fact remains is that aid was part of Sadyrs illegal conspiracy to construct his own prisons, army etc. In other words we were fools for letting the aid go.
It also indicates that our troops are getting sucked in to playing the Islamic politics game of clerics intervening that ultimately serve to let the Jihadist off when cornered against the wall, to fight another day.
Same thing happened in Pakistan recently. Over five hundred hole up at a camp but over 80 % got away under similar conditions of negotiations that is now going on in Fallujah and Najaf.
Our boys can win this thing if we will only let them fight it.
These thugs hide behind a facade of religion. If the Shia allow thugs sanctuary in their holy city then they have brought ruin down upon their holy sites. They have chose this path and have only themselves to blame when we have to go in and get these criminals.
It is Time for US Forces to prove without doubt that we are the strong horse in Iraq.
How holy can Najaf be, fer cryin out loud, if these thugs murder each other and Americans in it. Enough of this tread gently on their sensibilities crap. They wanted war; they've got war; let them learn what total war means. I'm heartily sick of every one of these "religious" hypocrites from Sistani on down. Sistani who thinks he's too pure to meet with Bremer cuz Bremer's an infidel. The amazing and hypocritical thing is that AsSadr is accused of killing Khoei and Hakim, Sistani knows it, everybody else knows it, yet, they're protecting AsSadr from arrest. Is that the act of a "religious" people? Thuggery, is what it is.
Let me get this straight: Moqtada al-Sadr's father was killed by Saddam Hussein's regime. We go in and get rid of Saddam, and this guy hates us? Where's the gratitude?
on a side note and sorry to hijack the thread
did anyone here see the president bomb last night at that press conference. i personally thought he did a pretty good job with his time wasting speech after he got halfway through it. but man that question in answer session just went bad from the first answer he gave... it was pretty embarassing to see him suffer his way through all the questions.
Leaving al-Sadr's or any private militia intact is a serious mistake. One of the lessona we should have learned in Afghanistan fighting the Taleban is to kill them now, or go back in later to finish the job.
jay
i think the cpa and bremer are more concerned with getting the current strife cooled down.
Holy is in eye of the beholder. However, I wonder about clerics that require a militia to enforce their fatwas. What would happen if my minister tried to raise and militia to enforce his political and theological views? If a militia is necessary to keep the faithful in line, what does that say about the moral status of his line?
I thought Bush's answers last night were right on. I also thought some of the press' questions were retarded and obviously left leaning. It's amazing how 2 people can watch the same thing and walk away with completly differant responces.
What happened with this pussification (I know its not a real word) of war. WWII lasted serveral years. If the enemy was hding in a church, you took over the church. If they hid in schools, you attakced them inside of schools. You think the Germans would have stopped short of a synagogue or the allies for that matter. Our enemies his everywhere and we attakced and dropped bombs on them. Errant bombs were dropped on civilians all the time. Its freaking war for crying out loud. NOW, we end a war in 1 month and your enemy never truly goes through a demoralizing phase because of this rediculous pussification. I'm not saying we should drop bombs on civilians for the sake of demoralizing, but come on, they are hiding in a mosque...level it and start over...
RE: Bush speech. Can we please find new REP. and DEM. candidates for president please. I think bush came off as a moron and defelcted every freaking question like any good secretive, arrogant politician does. This guy scares me. Same with Kerry. although I havent analyzed his intellect yet. But from what I've read in articles on this site...oy vey....
bush was really having a hard time with the questions i suspect that will be the last time for sometime that he does a press conference
bush has been more forthcoming and honest than any president since reagan. his administration is in constant contact with the public. this idea of secrecy is a myth. and the press conferences given by the white house are quite forthright as opposed to the spin zone perpetrated on us for 8 years by the previous administration.
he has a genuine personality. if that is tough to swallow for people who would rather have a flamboyant nincompoop in the spirit of jacques chirac or dominique de villipen, then vote for kerry.
the press wasted the americans time by asking obviously leading and idiotic questions. why didn't someone ask him what we're going to do about syria and iran -- or pakistan and saudi arabia for that matter? more and more, the masses who make themselves delirious on the regurgitated agneda journalism of most of the media will continue down their path into oblivion.
Great commentary on FPM regarding Iraq by UK PM Tony Blair.
" Why We Will Never Abandon Iraq
By Tony Blair
The Observer | April 14, 2004
We are locked in a historic struggle in Iraq. On its outcome hangs more than the fate of the Iraqi people. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than "the power of America" that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out. Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant. Every nascent strand of moderate Arab opinion, knowing full well that the future should not belong to fundamentalist religion, would be set back in bitter disappointment.
If we succeed -- if Iraq becomes a sovereign state, governed democratically by the Iraqi people; the wealth of that potentially rich country, their wealth; the oil, their oil; the police state replaced by the rule of law and respect for human rights -- imagine the blow dealt to the poisonous propaganda of the extremists. Imagine the propulsion toward change it would inaugurate all over the Middle East.
In every country, including our own, the fanatics are preaching their gospel of hate, basing their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the true religion of Islam. At their fringe are groups of young men prepared to conduct terrorist attacks however and whenever they can. Thousands of victims the world over have now died, but the impact is worse than the death of innocent people.
The terrorists prey on ethnic or religious discord. From Kashmir to Chechnya, to Palestine and Israel, they foment hatred, they deter reconciliation. In Europe, they conducted the massacre in Madrid. They threaten France. They forced the cancellation of the President of Germany's visit to Djibouti. They have been foiled in Britain, but only for now.
Of course they use Iraq. It is vital to them. As each attack brings about American attempts to restore order, so they then characterise it as American brutality. As each piece of chaos menaces the very path toward peace and democracy along which most Iraqis want to travel, they use it to try to make the coalition lose heart, and bring about the retreat that is the fanatics' victory.
They know it is a historic struggle. They know their victory would do far more than defeat America or Britain. It would defeat civilisation and democracy everywhere. They know it, but do we? The truth is, faced with this struggle, on which our own fate hangs, a significant part of Western opinion is sitting back, if not half-hoping we fail, certainly replete with schadenfreude at the difficulty we find.
So what exactly is the nature of the battle inside Iraq itself? This is not a "civil war," though the purpose of the terrorism is undoubtedly to try to provoke one. The current upsurge in violence has not spread throughout Iraq. Much of Iraq is unaffected and most Iraqis reject it. The insurgents are former Saddam sympathisers, angry that their status as "boss" has been removed, terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda and, most recently, followers of the Shia cleric, Muqtada-al-Sadr.
The latter is not in any shape or form representative of majority Shia opinion. He is a fundamentalist, an extremist, an advocate of violence. He is wanted in connection with the murder of the moderate and much more senior cleric, Ayatollah al Khoei last year. The prosecutor, an Iraqi judge, who issued a warrant for his arrest, is the personification of how appallingly one-sided some of the Western reporting has become. Dismissed as an American stooge, he has braved assassination attempts and extraordinary intimidation in order to follow proper judicial process and has insisted on issuing the warrant despite direct threats to his life in doing so.
There you have it. On the one side, outside terrorists, an extremist who has created his own militia, and remnants of a brutal dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of its own people and enslaved the rest. On the other side, people of immense courage and humanity who dare to believe that basic human rights and liberty are not alien to Arab and Middle Eastern culture, but are their salvation.
Over the past few weeks, I have met several people from the Iraqi government, the first genuine cross-community government Iraq had seen. People like Mrs Barwari, the Minister of Public Works, who has just survived a second assassination attempt that killed her bodyguard; people like Mr Zebari, the Foreign Minister. They are intelligent, forward-looking, tolerant, dedicated to their country. They know that 'the occupation' can be used to stir up anti-coalition feeling; they, too, want their country governed by its people and no one else. But they also know that if we cut and run, their country would be at the mercy of warring groups which are united only in their distaste for democracy.
The tragedy is that outside of the violence which dominated the coverage of Iraq, there are incredible possibilities of progress. There is a huge amount of reconstruction going on; the legacy of decades of neglect is slowly being repaired.
By 1 June, electricity will be 6,000 MW, 50 percent more than prewar, but short of the 7,500 MW they now need because of the massive opening up of the economy, set to grow by 60 percent this year and 25 per cent the next.
The first private banks are being opened. A new currency is in circulation. Those in work have seen their salaries trebled or quadrupled and unemployment is falling. One million cars have been imported. Thirty per cent now have satellite TV, once banned, where they can watch al-Jazeera, the radical Arab TV station, telling them how awful the Americans are.
The internet is no longer forbidden. Shrines are no longer shut. Groups of women and lawyers meet to discuss how they can make sure the new constitution genuinely promotes equality. The universities eagerly visit Western counterparts to see how a modern, higher-education system, free to study as it pleases, would help the new Iraq.
People in the West ask: why don't they speak up, these standard-bearers of the new Iraq? Why don't the Shia clerics denounce al-Sadr more strongly? I understand why the question is asked. But the answer is simple: they are worried. They remember 1991, when the West left them to their fate. They know their own street, unused to democratic debate, rife with every rumour, and know its volatility. They read the Western papers and hear its media. And they ask, as the terrorists do: have we the stomach to see it through?
I believe we do. And the rest of the world must hope that we do. None of this is to say we do not have to learn and listen. There is an agenda that could unite the majority of the world. It would be about pursuing terrorism and rogue states on the one hand and actively remedying the causes around which they flourish on the other: the Palestinian issue; poverty and development; democracy in the Middle East; dialogue between main religions.
I have come firmly to believe the only ultimate security lies in our values. The more people are free, the more tolerant they are of others; the more prosperous, the less inclined they are to squander that prosperity on pointless feuding and war.
But our greatest threat, apart from the immediate one of terrorism, is our complacency. When some ascribe, as they do, the upsurge in Islamic extremism to Iraq, do they really forget who killed whom on September 11, 2001? When they call on us to bring the troops home, do they seriously think that this would slake the thirst of these extremists, to say nothing of what it would do to the Iraqis?
Or if we scorned our American allies and told them to go and fight on their own, that somehow we would be spared? If we withdraw from Iraq, they will tell us to withdraw from Afghanistan and, after that, to withdraw from the Middle East completely and, after that, who knows? But one thing is for sure: they have faith in our weakness just as they have faith in their own religious fanaticism. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us.
It is not easy to persuade people of all this; to say that terrorism and unstable states with WMD are just two sides of the same coin; to tell people what they don't want to hear; that, in a world in which we in the West enjoy all the pleasures, profound and trivial, of modern existence, we are in grave danger.
There is a battle we have to fight, a struggle we have to win and it is happening now in Iraq."
Riiiight.. Bush is honest and he means what he says. Too bad no one knows what he means. Regardless of the press's stupid questions, he still couldnt answer them straight.
No one knew to ask bush about Syria or Iran because they don't know any better. But when Bush was calling out terrorism, why didn't he come forth and offer up Syria and Iran? Why doesnt he come out and really give a speech to the amercian public about the fight against Jihad...not just terrorism. Is he not aware of these things or is he afraid of the leftist backlash if he does? Someone has to lead, rather than deflect...
ted,
did we watch the same question and answer session? the president didnt give a straight answer to any of the questions, not only that but his body language and vocal patterns, and choice of words gave off the impression that he was nervous. another thing i really dislike when my president has to resort to looking down at his podium to read a talking point off of his notes to answer a question. and what was that answer to the second to last question about the fbi, the president did not even answer the question he just went off on a couple minute long campaign stump speach about 911, iraq, his plan for the future etc. that had nothing to do with the question which was how would he go about reforming the fbi( who seem to be the chosen fall guy now for 911). another thing that really got me was the repeating of talking points the president said in regards to preventing 911 "if we had one inkling about 911 i would have moved heaven and earth to stop it" or something to that regard well condi said the exact same thing verbatim twice once at the 911 commission and again on a tv interview. the president also seems to have taken a stance to basically repeat the same thing over and over again (with the hope that i guess it becomes true if you say it enough)and seems to be in complete denial about the WMD. and the whole thing about the turkey farm what the heck was that all about... at least Reagan could speak in front of a audience